Contrarian or just lame?

With reference to the "DI 400", Richard Forrest on Infidels did an analysis that shows that roughly 1/3 have credentials more-or-less relevant to an understanding of evolutionary biology, while 2/3s are an aggregation of everything from dairy science to "alternative medicine".

RBH

For example, I could not present to public school children all the many reasons that we know that the "Noah's Flood" never happened as described in fundamentalist/creationist myths. If I did this, I would be teaching facts but they would violate the US Constitution by discouraging a particular religious sect.

Is there a case on point?

You can't teach a kid that someone's religion is less worthy than someone's else's religion or no religion at all, but it is not a Constitutional violation to teach in science class that a verse in some religious mythos is scientifically incorrect.

If you've got case law to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

So would Jim Dobson.

Let us consider what the First Amendment cases blocking religious indoctrination from public schools are really about. Science educators are prevented from exposing creationism's absurdity in the classroom directly.

Huh? Since when?

How does exposing creationist pseudoscientific garbage as such qualify as "religious indoctrination."

The First Amendment is not a protective bubble in which anti-science religious fanatics and bigots are allowed to exist without challenge from the real world.

The First Amendment merely protects those religious fanatics from the government-sponsored dissemination of religious alternatives to their fanaticism. For example, the government cannot tell Muslims that Islam is bogus and Christianity is the real deal. But the government can tell Muslims and Christians that there is zilcho evidence to support the "theory" that two of every "kind" of non-swimming animal were put on a giant ship 5000 years ago while the earth was flooded.

Why is this allowed?

Because it's a fact -- you know, like the kind of fact that is relevant in courtrooms in this country and will remain relevant as long as we don't let sleaze artists like Jim Dobson and Jay Sekulow decide who gets to sit on the highest court.

Gary, other than my nitpicks above, I think you wrote a fine letter.

The answer to your question is: "just lame."

Balter sez:

Given the opportunity to debate, scientists should say: "Bring it on."

Hey Mr. Balter, I think you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to creationists, their garbage theories, and the way they choose to peddle their theories.

I want to debate you on that issue right here, as soon as possible. Are you up for that Mr. Balter? If so, please "bring it on." I'm ready whenever you are. I'm guessing you aren't up to the task but who knows maybe you are Lenny Flank's worst nightmare come to life at last.

Or else Mr. Balter why not visit the American Enterprise Institute website and download the videos which demonstrate to any human who isn't drunk on fundamentalist Christian kool-aid that creationist peddlers like Paul Nelson are dissembling cretins who can't answer a straightforward question if their lives depended on it.

And you'll get to see how Mr. Ryland, the VP of the Discovery Institute, happily tells bald-faced lies and refuses to apologize for the lies when he's presented with the incontrovertible evidence for those lies -- in real time! And of course you're aware (or you will be by the time we finish our debate that you are almost certainly too cowardly to "bring on") that without Mr. Ryland and his organization and the lies they propogate to our famously lazy American media, we would not be having this conversation.

"Bring it on." You make me puke, Mr. Balter.

Support for a Healthy Debate over Darwinism Needed to Curb Infringements on Academic Freedom Michael Balter is a Paris-based correspondent for the AAAS and the journal Science. In an opinion piece titled "Let 'intelligent design' and science rumble" in last Sunday's LA Times, Balter argued that public acceptance of evolution was suffering because of the Darwinian monopoly on public education. Balter is not the first Darwinist to suggest that free and open debate on Darwinism and intelligent design is healthy for science and for science education. (See our list of articles endorsing our teach the controversy approach). There's a lively debate about the article (with some atheists and Darwinists agreeing with Balter even, including responses from Balter, at this blog. So, maybe there's hope for academic freedom after all.

— Robert Crowther

... you will see that I do not advocate TEACHING intelligent design in the schools. What I advocate is a DEBATE, the best way for any point of view to win points. My starting point is that the theory of evolution has, in effect, already lost the debate---this is what the opinion polls I cite show, and a more recent Pew poll came up with similar results. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't believe it. As a science writer and former scientist, I find that unfortunate. But it does not make me think that I am smarter or superior to those who don't buy evolution; it makes me think that something has gone wrong in the way the theory is being taught. It is being taught as a MATTER OF FAITH rather than a theory that has a lot of evidence behind it. The best way to sharpen the teaching process is by debating.

I find this comment of Michael Balter's illuminating.

Gravity is poorly understood by scientists, and as I write they are still debating what it really is and how it really works. Yes, by all means let's debate gravity too---what a great way to teach it to students!

Marc Cooper's Blog

By all means current theories of gravity are incomplete. But poorly understood?

By the same criteria electricity is poorly understood. Everything in science is poorly understood.

And if gravity is poorly understood does that mean that the only possible answer is that God personally intervenes and stops each of us from floating off the Earth? Or does it mean that the Earth is flat?

Chris Noble

The more I think about this statement the stupider it seems.

Gravity is poorly understood by scientists, and as I write they are still debating what it really is and how it really works. Yes, by all means let's debate gravity too---what a great way to teach it to students!

Is he proposing that 9th grade high school students should be debating the merits of string theory and quantum gravity compared to Eintein's general theory of relativity? What a great way to teach it to students!

Or is he proposing that supernatural explanations for gravity should also be debated?

Chris Noble

It's truly amazing that "let's debate gravity too---what a great way to teach it to students!" is something Balter actually wrote, rather than someone parodying him. Since the debate occurs among the leading theorists over a long period of time in journals, seminars, and physics department hallways, just how does Balter envision this debate taking place in the classroom? But at least that debate is carried out via the scientific method, involving evidence, hypothesis formation, and falsification, with all parties cooperating to reach understanding the subject under discussion. A debate with IDiots is nothing of the sort.

I'm guessing you aren't up to the task but who knows maybe you are Lenny Flank's worst nightmare come to life at last.

I've been fighting creationists for well over 20 years now. I've helped form local coalitions to fight them locally, mano-a-mano. I've gotten my hands dirty with real grassrooots organizing to oppose and beat them. I've passed out leaflets in front of churches and on street corners. I've gone door-to-door to raise money. I've written press releases and been interviewed by the press. I've recruited new coalition members. I've spoken at local school board meetings. I've worked on election campaigns for anti-creationist school board candidates. I've done lots more than talk -- I've done all the nonglamorous drudge work that really gets political things done. Not very many ivory-tower academics (or freelance writer academic wanna-be's) can say that. I strongly suspect that YOU can't. Many of us have our own websites debunking ID/creationism. Mr Brass had written a book on the subject. Others are members of anti-ID groups in Kansas, Florida, Ohio and elsewhere. Several list members are helping organize the anti-ID movement in the UK. When the Dover story first broke, this list, all by itself, organized an international effort to donate over 20 topline science books to the Dover Public School Library (and by the way, the cooperation we got from other anti-ID groups in that effort was pretty close to zero). Where were YOU while all this was going on, Mr Balter? Upon what vast experience do YOU presume to lecture others on the matter?

Hi,
I could not find the videos on the American Enterprise Institute website
that was referenced above. Can anyone direct me. Thanks

The question of debating has been raised many times, in many places. Balter seems to simply fail to understand that the IDiots love public debating, because the rules are different than they are for scientific debates--public debates address existing biases, beliefs, and emotions rather than factual evidence. Convincing a jury of citizens is much different than convincing scientists working in the relevant field of research. We've seen the Creationists debate--shoveling untruths, out-of-context quotes, and misleading impressions over and over again. Just look at the apparent perjuries in the current debate involving Dover.
The Grand Debate has been going on for more than 100 years, and Creationism has been consistently losing. Some people simply cannot accept facts that disagree with their worldview.

The AEI videos mentioned above were available HERE. Commentary on the videos by the National Center for Science Education is available HERE.

I knew I was rather slow to respond to Mr. Balter. Thanks for the links to other critical reaction. I agree with Lenny Flank that Balter's not a "closet creatinist," just a poorly informed newbie.

The question of debating has been raised many times, in many places. Balter seems to simply fail to understand that the IDiots love public debating, because the rules are different than they are for scientific debates---public debates address existing biases, beliefs, and emotions rather than factual evidence. Convincing a jury of citizens is much different than convincing scientists working in the relevant field of research. We've seen the Creationists debate---shoveling untruths, out-of-context quotes, and misleading impressions over and over again. Just look at the apparent perjuries in the current debate involving Dover.

An off-topic question:

I was checking out Dembski's site and saw a note on Richard Smalley's death. Dembski then said he became a Christian a year ago and had "begun to express his doubts about Darwinism publicly." There were 2 links but they took me to ID sites, not Smalley in his own words. Dembski also claimed this: "Rick's prediction at the end of his life was that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution in its conventional materialistic sense would be dead within ten."

Does anyone know if Richard Smalley doubted evolution?

It smells bogus.

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.

And, like Stuart Pivar, Dembsi quotes a dead authority who is unable to contradict him. Lady Hope springs eternal in the creationist breast.

RBH

Another prime example of the ID mainstay, Argument from Unqualified Authority. A nobel-prize winning chemist believes in superstitious fairy tales and rejects evolution because of it. Conclusion? Evolution is unsupported by the evidence.

Dembski then said he became a Christian a year ago and had "begun to express his doubts about Darwinism publicly."

And, like Stuart Pivar, Dembsi quotes a dead authority who is unable to contradict him.

(kip) Isn't argument from authority a common logical fallacy: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm I think that (ii) applies in this case. [Much of what we believe is taken on authority --- and rightly so since we do not have the time to check everything out thoroughly in our brief lives. The argument from authority only becomes a fallacy if we think that this is enough to establish a claim. It's not --- ultimately there need to be sound arguments and evidence to back a claim up. Nonetheless, credible authorities give us good reason to think that the claims they are authorizing can indeed be backed up. ---WmAD]

Bill, is this seriously going to happen. Did two scientists really assess evolution as bankrupt? Benjii: I don't bluff. I don't take prisoners. ---WmAD Bill, may I ask what fields these scientists practice?

... the ACLU is arguing that requiring students to learn about ID amounts to "coerced religious practice." This is blatantly false, but if the courts go for it, ID would likely be classed with school prayer and Bible reading. , ... cases like Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian-based researcher who also edited a small, peer-reviewed biology journal. When he allowed a major pro-ID paper to be published, upon approval by three reviewers, his life turned into a nightmare. ... a federal investigation confirmed that they tried to drive him out of his job... This kind of thing all is going on everywhere. In fact, there's an entire book on it that's still in manuscript. When it comes out, I think people will be amazed at how widespread the harassment is - and how mean. , ... there seems to be a kind of anti-religious hysteria sweeping some segments of our society. There's just a visceral fear and hatred of anything that even whiffs of Christianity. , ... My best guess is that Bush's victory galvanized long-held anti-Christian stereotypes, causing many folks to drop all pretense of pluralism and join the battle in earnest. And I think it's particularly bad in origins because ID has been so spectacularly successful. , ... ID theory merely takes our natural reasoning and expresses it in more explicit, rigorous terms. It then seeks to apply it in such areas as genetics, cell biology, molecular biology and so on. Of course, that's the part that's got some folks wrapped around the axle, because living organisms were clearly not designed by humans. And if humans didn't make them, then who did?

When did Michael Balter become an evolutionary biologist?
Dean's World

Chris Noble

Dembski also claimed this: "Rick's prediction at the end of his life was that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution in its conventional materialistic sense would be dead within ten."

I've just now seen all this. The amazing hysteria with which my Los Angeles Times piece has been discussed on this blog just provides ammunition for the ID'er claim that Darwinism has become a secular religion to some. How else to explain the anger and intolerance for any dissent even within the scientific community itself? I write about evolution and its Darwinian mechanisms for Science on a very regular basis, so I count myself as part of that community--but am saddened by the intolerance I see among some of its members. Fortunately I received many messages from scientists who sympathized with what I was trying to do even if they had reservations about my proposals.

I quit Lenny Frank's DebunkCreation group because it specializes in personal attacks on people who disagree and is basically for people who want to feel superior to the ID'ers and creationists, who are branded as stupid and ignorant--as compared to the supposedly brilliant regulars on that blog. I am sorry to see some signs of that attitude here as well.

http://www.michaelbalter.com

What irritates me most about Mr. Balter's editorial is its presentation of ID arguments without refutations so that it reads more easily as a pro-ID than as anti-ID.

I write about evolution and its Darwinian mechanisms for Science on a very regular basis, so I count myself as part of that community---but am saddened by the intolerance I see among some of its members.

I quit Lenny Frank's

How else to explain the anger and intolerance for any dissent even within the scientific community itself?

I am sorry to see some signs of that attitude here as well.

What is it they're supposed to be tolerant of?

Let me start of by answering Lenny's question, What am I doing here? On 3 November, Gary Hurd posted a lengthy, point by point rebuttal of my Los Angeles Times piece of 2 October. As I pointed out to Gary in a private email, neither he nor anyone else associated with this site contacted me to let me know that my piece was under discussion here. I did not see these posts nor have any idea about them until yesterday, 8 November. Gary apologized, saying that he thought I would see it via other means, and I accepted his apology. But in fact, were it not for a somewhat tardy Google Alert, I might never have seen any of this.

Some of the posts refer to my short time as a member of the DebunkCreation group, which I joined and then posted my Times piece in which I offered as an alternative strategy to countering ID. (Obviously the people who have posted here don't think much of my strategy, which is fine--I will get to that in a moment.) With the exception of a sharp but reasoned response from Mikey Brass, my posting was followed by a flurry of personal attacks, questioning whether I was a dupe of the ID'ers, whether I was pretending to be an academic when I wasn't, and including a number of statements from Lenny and others that anyone who believes ID or creationism is stupid and/or ignorant. It was then that I formed my impression that some defenders of Darwin are intolerant, dogmatic, and filled with missionary zeal that has religious undertones--in other words, some people involved in this, although certainly not all or even a majority, have come to resemble the caricature of the Darwinist that the creationists have always tried to paint. I do indeed detect some of that attitude here, but as I said, I have had discussions with a number of scientists who had a more nuanced reaction to my Times piece. This gives me hope that there is room for discussion about strategy and tactics.

I make all of these remarks because I think they are relevant to the issue of whether or not it is possible to have disagreements within the ranks of the scientific community. That is a key issue for me, because I think that many scientists and defenders of science are in denial about the extent to which religious belief trumps evolutionary thinking in the United States. And I think that this denial has led to a sort of take-no-prisoners approach to the fight against ID that could end up with science losing bigtime. Again, more on that in a moment.

Lenny and Chris Noble have raised here the same issue that came up on DebunkCreation, ie, who I am and what my credentials are to have an opinion on these matters. Since they have engaged in the same personal innuendos as on DebunkCreation, I am going to take another moment to tell you who I am--something that anyone who has read Science for the past 15 years should have a good idea about already. I am from Los Angeles and am 58 years old. From 1974-77 I was a graduate student in the biology department at UCLA, during which time I taught undergraduates and engaged in laboratory research. For various reasons of personal choice I left the department after three years with an MA in biology and went into journalism. In 1991 I became the first correspondent on the European continent for Science, and from 1993 to end 2002 I was the journal's Paris correspondent. After quitting my staff position to write my book about prehistoric Catalhoyuk, The Goddess and the Bull (yes, it is good and yes you should read it) I became a Contributing Correspondent at the magazine, and my name is on the masthead indicating such. After finishing the book, I have continued in that capacity, and am one member of our three-person team specializing in archaeology and human evolution. Some of my articles, including several on human evolution (including the recent "Are Humans Still Evolving?"), can be found on the Articles page of my Web site:

http://www.michaelbalter.com/articles.php

You might read some of these to see whether you can find any hints of creationist thinking. And while you are on this page, please scroll down to the very bottom where my Los Angeles Times piece is posted and read it again or for the first time to see what I really say there. Then you will be ready for what I have to say next.

Gary has provided a very detailed rebuttal to my Times piece and it makes no sense for me to do a point by point rebuttal of his rebuttal, as my arguments are in the piece itself. But let me respond to certain things he says in yesterday's post and in his original post in a way that seems suitable to me as a response.

Gary says that he is "irritated" by the fact that I entered the discussion by writing an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, which does indeed have some 800,000 subscribers (not all of whom read the editorials, of course), and put out some "very poor suggestions" about debating ID. For one thing, I obviously did not, and still don't, agree that my suggestions are very poor, or I would never have written the piece in the first place. What does Gary think I should have done instead? Does he think that I should have debated my ideas about debating ID on The Panda's Thumb or DebunkCreation before going public with them, to see if they passed muster? Well, they have not passed muster with this group, but I still think they needed to be aired. I assume that Gary is also irritated by the fact that I made sure my piece got the widest possible dissemination, with some help from the Times syndication service and bloggers all over the world. Again, I did this because I think the current strategy is a loser. I state my reasons in the piece.

But Gary's rebuttal at the beginning of this thread confuses a number of different issues, all of which I agree are important in their own right: Whether or not we should debate the ID'ers, whether or not ID is science or religion, whether ID is correct, and whether I am naive or uninformed on these issues. He also complains that I helped ID and creationism by not refuting their positions in my Times piece but simply stating their position without comment. In fact, it was not the point of my piece to refute ID--plenty of others are already trying to do that--but to say that the best bet for scientists was to debate ID. Thus the fact that ID is wrongheaded or is not science is not relevant to the issue of whether we should debate them. The whole point in a debate is to try to prove the other side wrong. If you read my piece again, you should be able to see that I imply very heavily that scientists would win the debate as a result of their superior arguments. That is the meaning of my "bring it on" ending.

Thus when Gary asks, "Do you now understand that the ID proposals... are false," he is attacking a straw man. I am sorry if debating an opponent means acknowledging that the opponent exists and has a point of view that he or she has a right to defend, but that is the way it is. And that's where some of the intolerance comes in: The self-satisfied feeling of many people on the DebunkCreation group that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and/or ignorant serves to LESSEN THE INFLUENCE THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE IN THIS ONGOING CULTURE WAR. To the extent that others adopt this attitude, you will lose in the long run.

So back to my point about denial. As I cite in my piece, and as everyone here knows, the opinion polls (Gallup, Pew, etc) consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans accept either ID or straight out creationism. That is the point from which we start. Scientists and educators have relied heavily on the courts to keep religious objections to evolution out of the classroom, with considerable success until recently. The Dover case is not yet decided, and when it is, most likely it will be appealed to a Supreme Court that will probably include a lot of judges you might not want to see handling this issue. Yesterday there was a setback in Kansas and a victory in Dover. But the battle for the hearts and minds of school kids and adults on the issues of religion vs science has been largely lost up to now, as the opinion polls show. You may keep ID out of some classrooms but you won't keep it out of American life unless you are willing to confront your opponents directly in debate--that is my view, agree or not.

That brings me to one last major point, and a minor one. The claims by some ID'ers that ID represents an alternative scientific hypothesis to Darwinian approaches drives many scientists wild with anger, and I understand and sympathize with that. But really, you have fallen into their well-laid trap. ID is really a religious explanation for how we all got here, and if there was a debate between Michael Behe and, say, Jerry Coyne or Allen Orr on national TV it could be very enlightening in that regard. This in fact was one of my proposals; do you really not want to see this debate take place? The fact is, however, that the average American, and by that I mean the overwhelming majority of Americans, don't care at all whether ID is really science or not. What they care about is which has the better explanation for how we all got here, religion or science. So keeping debate about ID (which is NOT the same as teaching the controversy, although some, including the ID'ers themselves, have myopically tried to see my piece as suggesting that) out of the classroom does not help win converts to Darwinian or scientific thinking because only a confrontation between religion and science can resolve the issue. Again, my support for this is the opinion polls which show that the percentage of Americans who think science has the better explanation is dismally low and has not risen in 20 years.

The minor point is Gary's statement that I said scientists are afraid to confront creationists. Search the Los Angeles Times and see if I said that. What I said is that they did not want to debate, for reasons that may seem sound but which I find self-defeating. But that does raise an interesting issue which came up in the emails I received from some scientists about my piece. While agreeing that a debate was a good idea in principle, they expressed a lot of concern that the concepts of evolution were too complex to be handled properly in a high school biology class. My response to that is, if evolution is too complicated to teach to high school students, on what basis should they be expected to accept it as the best explanation--as a matter of faith?

Bon courage, as we say here, to everyone in this struggle--because there are rough times ahead and you are going to need it. And if you don't understand that I am on your side, then go back and read my Times piece, and my articles for Science, one more time.

Addendum:

The new Dover school board could of course decide not to appeal a court decision against ID, or it could simply change the policy. On the other hand, if the court decides for ID, the Dover parents will no doubt be headed for the Supreme Court eventually with the possible permanent adverse effects I suggest above. And I would be interested to know what people here think is the best strategy for Kansas now. A court challenge could also have adverse results for the entire country if it loses. In my view, Kansas is the perfect place to try out my proposals if the denial can be overcome.

Balter, making a fool out of himself in public, writes

It was then that I formed my impression that some defenders of Darwin are intolerant, dogmatic, and filled with missionary zeal that has religious undertones---in other words, some people involved in this, although certainly not all or even a majority, have come to resemble the caricature of the Darwinist that the creationists have always tried to paint.

Uh ... come again? Some dudes on a blog think you're a naive tool and explain why in no uncertain terms. And this reminds me you of the "caricature of the Darwinist" that creationists love to paint, namely : intolerant, dogmatic, and filled with missionary zeal that has religious undertones.

Wake up, Mr. Balter. There is no Pope of science. There is no Jim Dobson of science. There is no Jerry Falwell of science. There is no equivalent of a Discovery Institute of science where ego-tripping scientists gather together and formulate political plans and propaganda for "turning the train around", redefining God, and inserting atheist values into religions, all on the dime of some millionaire atheist freaks.

You spouted some funky baloney, Mr. Balter, that revealed your naivety and, yes, people more intelligent and more experienced than you pointed their fingers at you, chuckled, and made some derisive comments. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo! Your wittle feewings got hurt! So now you pretend that we didn't understand what you were talking about and you repeat the same ol' sweet-sounding but oh-so-empty bullcrap.

In fact, it was not the point of my piece to refute ID---plenty of others are already trying to do that

Come again? What do you mean by "trying to refute ID", Mr. "I'm On Your Side Why Can't You See That"? What's left of the scientific theory of ID that hasn't been refuted, in your opinion, Mr. Balter?

You see, Mr. Balter, you have a lazy writing style for someone who claims to be on the side of scientists. That doesn't surprise me. Laziness is a fairly common human trait. You're lazy. I suggest you work harder at editing what you write more carefully if you don't want to be serving softballs to creationists or confusing the rubes who read your copy.

Is it intolerant of me to point this out to you, Mr. Balter? Dogmatic? Is my zeal "missionary" in nature?

No, it's not. So save your tears, Mr. Balter.

I am sorry if debating an opponent means acknowledging that the opponent exists and has a point of view that he or she has a right to defend, but that is the way it is.

My point of view is that the Discovery Institute is composed of a bunch of professional liars whose goal is to claim scientific validation for the existence of their deity, after which they'll claim that their personal religious views about the universe are entitled to same credit as scientifically established facts.

Go ask Mr. Luskin from the Discovery Institute if he'd be interested in debating this issue with, say, Mr. Rothschild of Dover fame. When Lying Luskin declines, why don't you write a big fat article discussing why a controversy-loving freak like Luskin would refuse such a debate.

You see, my point of view about Mr. Luskin and the Discovery Institute is shared by a whole lot of people but for some reason so-called "journalists" don't acknowledge this view or the reams of evidence which support this view in a way that seems very, uh, balanced (given that the ratio of professional biologists who think is ID is worthless garbage versus those that think it's "interesting" is probably 1000 to 1).

Why don't you do something about this lack of balance, Mr. Self-proclaimed Writer Balter, instead of churning out articles which suggest that scientists should take time away from their jobs in order to provide careers for creationists (who don't do scientific research, as some of us already know).

Id you write that sort of article, Mr. Balter, and you write it well and you write it repeatedly like you mean it, then you won't be mistaken for a lazy creationist-serving lump (you know, like the ignoramuses who write copy for CNNOnline).

The Dover case is not yet decided, and when it is, most likely it will be appealed to a Supreme Court

Why do you think this? I would be stunned if the Supreme's take cert on any issue arising from the facts in this case. Why do you say this? Do you think Judge Jones is going to write a terrible opinion that confuses the law terribly? Do you think that

I'm confused, Mr. Balter. But you're the journalist. Enlighten me, oh great distributor of balanced facts!

that will probably include a lot of judges you might not want to see handling this issue.

Really? I'd have no problem with the current set of Supreme's addressing any issue arising from the facts of Dover. 'Bring it on,' indeed.

But the battle for the hearts and minds of school kids and adults on the issues of religion vs science has been largely lost up to now, as the opinion polls show.

Really? Is that what the polls show, Mr. "I'm On Your Side" Balter? Are you sure about that? With your fantastic journalistic imagination, Mr. Balter, do you think that you could come up with some poll questions that would incontrovertibly show the opposite of what these other polls show?

Seriously, Mr. Balter. Whatever you're smoking, get off it. It's 2005. You're 58 freaking years old. Time to wake up. Learn how to read a damn poll and understand the limits of what polls show, okay?

You may keep ID out of some classrooms but you won't keep it out of American life unless you are willing to confront your opponents directly in debate---that is my view, agree or not.

I don't agree and your view is pretty much worthless for all the reaons I've alluded to above. You have presented us with nothing to support your "strategy" except gripes about "look how bad it is and it's only going to get worse unless you do something."

Why aren't you suggesting that history teachers step up to plate and start teaching kids why we have a separation clause in the first place? Why does the Constitution mandate that arts and sciences be promoted but prohibits the promotion of religion? Why aren't history teachers teaching that in class?

For that matter, why isn't that being discussed on television whenever this issue comes up?

And why aren't journalists like you, Mr. "I'm On Your Side" Balter explaining the answers to these questions plainly and repetively to your readers?

Explaining why ID is a pile of baloney is simple, Mr. Balter. You dont need to be Ph.D. to show how ridiculous it is and explain why the rubes who buy into it are behaving like fools. Likewise, you don't need to be a Supreme Court justice to understand that the Constitution of the US does not permit the establishment of a Christian theocracy. And you don't need to be a political science professor to see that such an establishment is the goal of the Discovery Institute.

You only need to open your eyes and speak in clear simple sentences so the rubes can understand. You need to do that. I need to do that. Gary Hurd needs to do that. We all need to do that.

But hosting debates aboutscience with these professional hucksters, so they can get their garbage about the bacterial flagellum being created out of thin air by some invisible sky being into print for the 10,000th time? That's absurd.

The self-satisfied feeling of many people on the DebunkCreation group that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and/or ignorant serves to LESSEN THE INFLUENCE THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE IN THIS ONGOING CULTURE WAR. To the extent that others adopt this attitude, you will lose in the long run.

Funny, ridiculing stupid idiots seems to work to keep racist idiots mostly underground in this country. Or is there some ongoing series of debates I don't know about where blacks debate whites about whether they are, in fact, members of the same species?

You see: you've got it exactly backwards, Mr. "I'm On Your Side" Balter. The more people adopt my attitude, the more I'm guaranteed to win. This is especially true in the case of ID where the issue is purely political. You'll recall (or maybe you won't) that the miserable rubes in Dover who were so eager to teach their kids "intelligent design" admitted to Judge Jones that they had no clue what it was!!!! Indeed, nobody can provide a coherent explanation for "ID" that amounts to anything more than "Uh ... duh ...duh ... God did it!"

That's not science. It's religion. The government can't promote religions in public schools by telling its citizens lies about scientific evidence for deities. It's illegal to do that under the Constitution, for reasons that are clear to anyone who is willing to "think critically" about the consequences of the government behaving otherwise.

It is in fact quite simple, Mr. Balter. And that is why each and every time these charlatans are pressed to explain what the hell they are talking about, the start lying. They start making asses of themselves.

And it is that behavior that needs to be addressed, Mr. Balter. It's not the behavior of blog commenters and professional scientists who are merely stating the facts about how these charlatans behave and how ignorant the rubes are who buy the snake-oil.

You want to educate the rubes? Write an article about Barbara Forrest and her research. Write an article about the Dover trial and what happened. Write an article about Bill "Stand up For Jesus" Buckingham and his similarities to another well-known lying baloney-artist who self-identifies as a Christian by the name of Rush Limbaugh.

It's fascinating stuff. Educate the rubes, Mr. Balter. But first, educate yourself.

The fact is, however, that the average American, and by that I mean the overwhelming majority of Americans, don't care at all whether ID is really science or not. What they care about is which has the better explanation for how we all got here, religion or science.

Really? Is that what Americans care about? Who has the better explanation, religion or science? Does that come from a poll, Mr. Balter? Care to define what you mean by "better"? Are you sure you didn't mean to say "simpler"?

You sound so much like the empty balloon-heads that fill up the TV screens at the aiport, Mr. Balter, it's downright creepy. Those professional pundits are always telling us what "Americans" really want but those brilliant mind-readers never seem to be able to bring themselves to explain how uninformed the majority of Americans are about very basic facts. Perhaps that's because the pundits are similarly uninformed or just too lazy to think anything through. Again, Mr. Balter, the similarities are striking.

While agreeing that a debate was a good idea in principle, they expressed a lot of concern that the concepts of evolution were too complex to be handled properly in a high school biology class. My response to that is, if evolution is too complicated to teach to high school students, on what basis should they be expected to accept it as the best explanation---as a matter of faith?

I am certain Mr. Balter that you could not explain to me how a quantum chemist understands the reactions between atoms in a simple ketone synthesis. Yet, we teach chemistry in high school class as if the atoms in those stick models are really there! On what basis should students be expected to accept that the scientists aren't just pulling all that atom stuff out of their rear-ends? As a matter of faith????

If my questions sounds stupid, Mr. Balter, let me assure you: it is stupid. The answer to your question is so obvious that I will leave it to you to answer.

You're 58 years old, a professional writer or so you claim, and your question simply shows that you didn't bother to think very carefully about what you were writing.

That's an odd trait for a journalist, in my humble opinion.

When you arrive at the answer to your question, do me a favor: write an article about it. Write an article about how the answer to that question helps you answer some similar "deep" questions that creationists often ask in their attempts to smear scientists.

And in your article please describe whether it was a creationist or a defender of science who prompted your enlightenment.

And be honest.

Wow, what an amazing confirmation of my statement that there are a large number of intolerant, name calling personal attack artists here. And from an anonymous "Registered User," no less. I used my name, why don't you use yours?

With the exception of a sharp but reasoned response from Mikey Brass, my posting was followed by a flurry of personal attacks, questioning whether I was a dupe of the ID'ers, whether I was pretending to be an academic when I wasn't, and including a number of statements from Lenny and others that anyone who believes ID or creationism is stupid and/or ignorant.

Wow, what an amazing confirmation of my statement that there are a large number of intolerant, name calling personal attack artists here.

And from an anonymous "Registered User," no less. I used my name, why don't you use yours?

morbius, feel free to trot out the entire DebunkCreation thread if you like, I will stand by everything I said there.

But let me ask you and Mr. Registered User something. Why do you care so much what I think that you spend precious time at your keyboards to answer me, if I am so uninformed and my arguments are so bad and I am such a bad journalist? Why not just smile at my foolishness and let it pass? Why the animus? Perhaps you need to take a close look at what is really motivating you here, because you hurt the fight against creationism and don't help it by your attitudes. I wonder how many people Mr. Registered User has won over by calling them "rubes," or perhaps that is why he is anonymous? And please don't forget that this thread started with a rebuttal of my Los Angeles Times piece that I was not given the courtesy of being informed about, and now you are shocked! shocked! that I actually have the ill manners to answer it.

Why do you care so much what I think that you spend precious time at your keyboards to answer me, if I am so uninformed and my arguments are so bad and I am such a bad journalist?

Well, in large part the irritation I feel is that you chose to enter the discussion on the editorial pages of the LA Times with very poor suggestions that indicate that you have very little background in teaching or the creationist assault on science education. As I wrote above,

What irritates me most about Mr. Balter's editorial is its presentation of ID arguments without refutations so that it reads more easily as a pro-ID than as anti-ID.

— Gary Hurd

Gary says that he is "irritated" by the fact that I entered the discussion by writing an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, which does indeed have some 800,000 subscribers (not all of whom read the editorials, of course), and put out some "very poor suggestions" about debating ID. ... I assume that Gary is also irritated by the fact that I made sure my piece got the widest possible dissemination, with some help from the Times syndication service and bloggers all over the world.

— Michael Balter

morbius, feel free to trot out the entire DebunkCreation thread if you like, I will stand by everything I said there.

you are shocked! shocked! that I actually have the ill manners to answer it.

Does he think that I should have debated my ideas about debating ID on The Panda's Thumb or DebunkCreation before going public with them, to see if they passed muster? Well, they have not passed muster with this group, but I still think they needed to be aired.

"He's certainly fair to every argument, but perhaps too fair. It's one thing not to claim to have the magic key, but quite another to almost intentionally frustrate the reader to prove a point."

Okay, morbius is finally getting down to the crux of things with this:

I think your editorial hurt the cause, and good evidence of that is that numerous creationist sites have championed it. As Mikey Brass wrote, "you are falling for precisely the strategy that the Wedge Document calls for, and are dancing to the tune that the IDs want you to as one
of their first steps".

So I am going to respond to this and then that is it for me in this thread, because I don't think we are going anywhere--although I am sure you will continue to abuse me and misrepresent my views whether I respond or not! I suggest that you go read George Orwell about the way that the "playing into the hands of the enemy" line is used to try to shut up dissent and alternative views. I wrote the Los Angeles Times piece and proposed debating ID for all the reasons I state very clearly above, whether you agree with them or not: I think it is the best way to go. I am sorry that you don't agree but my only hope is that my views become even more widespread, so no regrets whatsoever. Fortunately there is free speech in the United States and thus I am allowed to push my viewpoint whether or not it is popular with those who want to march in lockstep and demand that everyone follow the same strategy.

And yes, the Discovery Institute and others on their side of the debate have posted my article, precisely because they know that scientists don't want to debate and so they can score even more points by pretending this is because they are afraid to or are dogmatic Darwinists. I have already said that I don't believe the first of these two, but I am not so sure about the second.

PS--Apologies to Tim Chase for forgetting about his post, too bad this is not a debate about trite stuff like that or morbius would win it hands down.

k.e.'s comment on my book review came after I had posted. Thanks for a good example of selective quoting, by all means everyone should go to that link and see what Orrin Judd had to say about my book.

The new Dover school board could of course decide not to appeal a court decision against ID, or it could simply change the policy. On the other hand, if the court decides for ID, the Dover parents will no doubt be headed for the Supreme Court eventually with the possible permanent adverse effects I suggest above. And I would be interested to know what people here think is the best strategy for Kansas now. A court challenge could also have adverse results for the entire country if it loses.

In my view, Kansas is the perfect place to try out my proposals if the denial can be overcome.

I am sure you will continue to abuse me and misrepresent my views whether I respond or not

I suggest that you go read George Orwell about the way that the "playing into the hands of the enemy" line is used to try to shut up dissent and alternative views.

PS---Apologies to Tim Chase for forgetting about his post, too bad this is not a debate about trite stuff like that or morbius would win it hands down.

Mr Balter

I take it you brushed up on Neolithic Mythology before you wrote your book.

THE WORLD OF JOSEPH CAMPBELL
VHS, 13-part series, 57 m each

PART 3 AND WE WASHED OUR WEAPONS IN THE SEA: GODS AND GODDESSES OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD
A cornerstone of modern life was the establishment of god-centered religions. Campbell traces this phenomenon from the Neolithic period, when goddesses were the primary mythic figures, to the emergence of wars of conquest and differing social roles, which heralded the dominance of god-centered religions.

The rest are here

http://www.ahf.net/AHRC/religiousstudies.htm

Maybe one of your reviewers wouldn't have complained "Too much Bull not enough Goddess"

Just tell me when to stop.

Thanks for a good example of selective quoting

Mr Balter Want to help?

Well don't plug you "Bulldust and no Goddesses"

Read any one of these and report back when your done.

Strong Religion : The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World (The Fundamentalism Project) by Gabriel A. Almond

Understanding Fundamentalism by Richard Antoun

The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong

Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America by Mary Jo Weaver

Gods in the Global Village : The World's Religions in Sociological Perspective (Sociology for a New Century Series) by Lester Kurtz

The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism by Jr., Ralph W. Hood

Maybe one of your reviewers wouldn't have complained "Too much Bull not enough Goddess"

Different reviewer, different perspective, direct quote from Amazon.
Another reviewer found the focus on the people at the dig and their seemingly postmodern methodology with little speculation on the (goddess) culture, which the archaeologists apparently found to be a joke leading to his/her quote "Too much Bull not enough Goddess". Can't satisfy everyone of course, but doesn't boost his credentials on the religious understanding side.

Anyway thanks for pointing out the point I should have made clearer in the first quote. Trying in an overly? fair way of showing why Mr Balter's self focused style seems to some people like fingernails running down a blackboard.

I can't help this image, is he like one of the actors in a Jaque Tati Film? Sort of a self focused, myopic, nonchalant well dressed harmless tall guy with glasses causing mayhem in the streets. As he ties his shoe laces cars crash, he looks at his watch and walks into a plate glass windows. Argues with an old lady walking a poodle and tips his hat to a policeman.......All with an annoying piano going in the background.

The whole point everyone is trying to make:-

There is a well funded media savvy PR game of kill science and take no prisoners being played by ruthless Fundamentalists. Is that clear "LE GRAND BLOND AVEC UNE CHAUSSURE NOIRE" ?

I said I was done but then morbius raised a very legitimate issue concerning my debate idea as applied to Kansas (someone tell me how to put quotes in boxes, please):

"It will be interesting to see you explain how you would go about implementing schoolroom debates of the sort you favor, especially when the other side controls the curriculum, and how you would fund and implement debates on Kansas TV between trained Discovery Institute rhetoricians vs. academic evolutionary biologists, such that viewers with poor science education and strong fundamentalist views don't conclude that ID is the more convincing view, or at least that it's just two competing theories. Perhaps, if you dropped your denial, you would realize that the denial you perceive is an informed view based on extensive experience and analysis."

I do actually have some ideas about this but would like to take some time to formulate them properly rather than in shoot from the hip blog form, and believe it or not I am a science writer with deadlines. Meet me back here in a couple of days if you are interested.

btw, k.e. seems to be flipping out, if anyone knows him or her can they get a doctor over there right away? I was grateful at first for the link to a very nice review of my book but now am sorry about it.

Please don't tell us you are going to debate them yourself.

So I am going to respond to this and then that is it for me in this thread, because I don't think we are going anywhere---although I am sure you will continue to abuse me and misrepresent my views whether I respond or not!

Different reviewer, different perspective, direct quote from Amazon. Another reviewer found the focus on the people at the dig and their seemingly postmodern methodology with little speculation on the (goddess) culture, which the archaeologists apparently found to be a joke leading to his/her quote "Too much Bull not enough Goddess". Can't satisfy everyone of course, but doesn't boost his credentials on the religious understanding side.

So Mr. Balter isn't going to answer any of my questions.

What a surprise.

Neither does he acknowledge his errors.

What a surprise.

I was the [Science} journal's Paris correspondent. After quitting my staff position to write my book about prehistoric Catalhoyuk, The Goddess and the Bull (yes, it is good and yes you should read it) I became a Contributing Correspondent at the magazine, and my name is on the masthead indicating such.

don't know about you but when someone says "my book is good and you should read it" had better be prepared to back that up.

Let me start of by answering Lenny's question, What am I doing here?

I do actually have some ideas about this but would like to take some time to formulate them properly rather than in shoot from the hip blog form, and believe it or not I am a science writer with deadlines. Meet me back here in a couple of days if you are interested.

Entirely appropriate I think
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=48570

In the mean time, take a look at Debunking Michael Balter which makes some good points without calling anyone names.

I think you mean Duane's previous piece, Michael Balter on Teaching the Controversy, which does indeed respectfully make quite a few good points.

I'm sorry, but the statements by a number of people here that I have not answered the criticisms of my position made by Gary, Duane and others is simply untrue and dishonest. I have done so in my lengthy post above, in the way I felt was most appropriate. I have also stated that there is intolerance among some in this movement, and I stand by that. We still disagree, that is the issue.

I'm sorry, but the statements by a number of people here that I have not answered the criticisms of my position made by Gary, Duane and others is simply untrue and dishonest.

Gary has provided a very detailed rebuttal to my Times piece and it makes no sense for me to do a point by point rebuttal of his rebuttal, as my arguments are in the piece itself.

Michael defines the term "self important".

his posts come off as dismissive and arrogant, regardless of the fact that he has shown over and over that he doesn't understand the least bit of the logical criticism of his article represented here.

pretty sad for a writer of any kind, let alone a science writer.

I too would like to see a more reasoned response to criticism of his article. If it ends up not being forthcoming, I would further like to see the response of his employers to his approach to "science writing".

There are good science writers and bad ones, and so far, I haven't seen the good part of why Michael should be employed as a science writer.

This sounds like a threat to try to get me fired because of the position I have taken here. Is that the level of discussion on this site?

"I too would like to see a more reasoned response to criticism of his article. If it ends up not being forthcoming, I would further like to see the response of his employers to his approach to "science writing".

There are good science writers and bad ones, and so far, I haven't seen the good part of why Michael should be employed as a science writer."

While I am here, I have meant to make some comments about the Wedge document. I believe it was Mikey Brass (morbius, you could tell me if I recall this wrong) who first asked me on DebunkCreation if I was aware of this. The answer is yes, but it has only a limited importance in my view to the debate we are having over whether to debate ID or not. To me, the Wedge document is to the anti-ID fight as the Downing Street memo is to the fight against the war in Iraq, a war which I oppose very strongly. A lot of anti-war people thought that exposure of the Downing Street memo, which demonstrates pretty clearly that Bush and co. intended to attack Iraq and "fix the intelligence around the policy" while they were publicly claiming that they were pursuing all options other than war, would naturally win lots of people over to oppose the war. That did not happen because the support for the war is not based entirely on rational considerations. Thus Cindy Sheehan was much more potent that the Downing Street memo, because people have to be confronted with a whole range of contradictions before they change their minds on a subject. The motivations are secondary to most people. Likewise, it does not matter to most people whether or not ID is part of a planned strategy, a conspiracy, or whatever, as long as it resonates with something that they already believe--and in some cases believe deeply and religiously. Thus the issue of whether or not to debate ID cannot be decided based entirely on the motivations and strategy of the ID movement--it is fine to try to expose that, but does not change many peoples' minds and impresses mostly those like you who already oppose ID. The question is what is the best strategy to counter ID, which must take into consideration the motivations of the opponents but not be determined by them.

Just to summarize: The Wedge document may seem very important to you, but it is not very important to people who already believe that ID is correct because they think it is just fine to introduce it into the schools. The majority of Americans believe that alternatives to evolution should be taught. Now the the Kansas board has made its decision, scientists and educated should try to turn a bad thing into a good thing by aggressively ensuring that Darwinian evolution is properly represented and defended. Again, the best way to do that is to debate the ID'ers. They have won in Kansas, and you have now have nothing to lose by confronting them directly, on their home base as it were.

Sorry, that is scientists and educators, not educated.

"it makes no sense for me to do a point by point rebuttal of his rebuttal."

Gary Hurd quotes this earlier statement by me as if it is some sort of strike against my argument. I argue in the way that I think is most effective and honest, and do not assume that the only people reading these posts are those of you who continue to respond to what I have to say, much as I read your posts with interest. I am arguing to the large number of people who come onto this site and am not a puppet to the small number who are actually debating me, obligated to respond to each and every point that you make--even though in reality I already have in nearly all cases. Instead of quibbling about how I argue, read what I have to say--I am certainly reading what you say, but we still disagree.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

-Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

I'm sorry, but the statements by a number of people here that I have not answered the criticisms of my position made by Gary, Duane and others is simply untrue and dishonest.

it makes no sense for me to do a point by point rebuttal of his rebuttal, as my arguments are in the piece itself

To me, the Wedge document is to the anti-ID fight as the Downing Street memo is to the fight against the war in Iraq, a war which I oppose very strongly. A lot of anti-war people thought that exposure of the Downing Street memo, which demonstrates pretty clearly that Bush and co. intended to attack Iraq and "fix the intelligence around the policy" while they were publicly claiming that they were pursuing all options other than war, would naturally win lots of people over to oppose the war.

"You do yourself no favors by suggesting that Mikey Brass or anyone else who offers this criticism is morally equivalent to the Bush administration."

Let's get things straight, as I have a lot of respect for Mikey: I suggested no such thing. What I clearly said is that you can't judge my argument by whether or not the Discovery Institute posts my Times article. It has been posted by bloggers and others on both sides of the issue all over the world.

As for concessions: Although I am strongly convinced that I am right, I realize that I could be wrong. The problem is that none of the arguments here have convinced me that I am. Are you ready to concede that I might be right, in whole or part? No one here has made any concessions to any of the points I have made, the only one was Duane on another site.

There are good science writers and bad ones, and so far, I haven't seen the good part of why Michael should be employed as a science writer.

"the importance of the Wedge Document is what it tells us about the nature of the debate --- those of us willing to listen, anyway."

I totally agree that this document tells us what some of the key ID organizers are up to. But one of my main arguments is that ID falls on fertile ground precisely because it corresponds to what the majority of people think and feel as a matter of religious faith. That is why we have the Kansas situation: If the ID'ers did not have a receptive audience, they would get nowhere. And sorry, but I do not believe that everyone who thinks this way is stupid and ignorant, as some people especially on DebunkCreation have suggested (morbius since you have access to the threads, why don't you pull a few of those comments and post them here, anonymously of course? Or at least agree that these kinds of comments were made by a number of people. For my part, I will concede that I did not handle the debate in that group as dispassionately as I should have.)

That raises the important strategic issues about how we get from where we are now, with ID a national issue and evolutionists fighting a constant battle, to where we want to be, people thinking scientifically. It's too late to put ID back in the bottle, so I propose that we confront it directly. We can only gain from this. I understand the concerns here that this would just serve to legitimize ID, I concede concede concede that this is a legitimate and sincere worry, but it has already been legitimized in the minds of so many Americans that we can only go forward from here!

Time for dinner, everyone have a good day.

Let's get things straight, as I have a lot of respect for Mikey: I suggested no such thing.

The problem is that none of the arguments here have convinced me that I am.

Are you ready to concede that I might be right, in whole or part? No one here has made any concessions to any of the points I have made, the only one was Duane on another site.

But one of my main arguments is that ID falls on fertile ground precisely because it corresponds to what the majority of people think and feel as a matter of religious faith.

I make all of these remarks because I think they are relevant to the issue of whether or not it is possible to have disagreements within the ranks of the scientific community. That is a key issue for me, because I think that many scientists and defenders of science are in denial about the extent to which religious belief trumps evolutionary thinking in the United States. And I think that this denial has led to a sort of take-no-prisoners approach to the fight against ID that could end up with science losing bigtime.

I asked earlier if someone could tell me how to put quotes in blocks like you all do. I have read the Kwick thing and sorry to be dense but not at all clear to me what you do. Then I could respond to morbius's last post tomorrow and have it look nice like all of yours.

k.e. I am trying hard to keep up with your reading suggestions but I fear I shall never catch up and be as learned as you.

Use these guys: < >
"quote" to open "/quote" to close

Mr Michael Balter

put a [shift ,] blockquote [shift .]

insert stuff

then [shift , fwd slash] blockquote [shift .]

You said

"
......already been legitimized in the minds of so many Americans that we can only go forward from here"

Look at the early debates in Britain, one thing they knew how to do was the "Vox Pop" before it was "Vox Pop"

such as ...
Can't find the orig. but a 1920's Brit. PM said something like

"They say we don't know whether we are Apes or Angels .... I side with the Angels".

On second thoughts that mabe TOO literal... anyway the short nuanced statement is what people remember

Michael, you need to do two things to use KwickXML. You need to declare a function, and then you need to end it. The declaration function is as shown above. To end it, type a / before the first part of the function declaration (anything after and including the first space is deleted). So to end a block quote, you need to type /quote within angle brackets <>.

Man! ... 3 posts while thinking. I'm taking a break to catch up so excuse me if I'm out of sync on the thread

Michael, you need to do two things to use KwickXML.

I make all of these remarks because I think they are relevant to the issue of whether or not it is possible to have disagreements within the ranks of the scientific community.

Your comment wasn't specifically directed at him

Okay, morbius is finally getting down to the crux of things with this:I think your editorial hurt the cause, and good evidence of that is that numerous creationist sites have championed it. As Mikey Brass wrote, "you are falling for precisely the strategy that the Wedge Document calls for, and are dancing to the tune that the IDs want you to as one of their first steps".

I am trying hard to keep up with your reading suggestions but I fear I shall never catch up and be as learned as you.

am sure you will continue to abuse me and misrepresent my views whether I respond or not

right, so anyone who cares about quality science writing should contact Science magazine's editorial board to point out the lack thereof in MB's latest "work" and encourage them not to hire Mr. Blather for further piece work.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/feedback

we have enough bad writers out there confusing the issue without the continued contributions of Mr. Balter

I for one, will be trying to locate and contact your editor to see why they let you be a science writer to begin with. Your "commentary" is barely fit for a note in a small town papers opinion section, let alone for any significant presentation of the issues at hand.

And yes, the Discovery Institute and others on their side of the debate have posted my article, precisely because they know that scientists don't want to debate and so they can score even more points by pretending this is because they are afraid to or are dogmatic Darwinists. I have already said that I don't believe the first of these two, but I am not so sure about the second.

Most scientists don't want any debate.

right, so anyone who cares about quality science writing should contact Science magazine's editorial board to point out the lack thereof in MB's latest "work" and encourage them not to hire Mr. Blather for further piece work.

P.S. Your comment #56306 makes some good points; the stuff about contacting his editor detracts from those, and from the points I have tried to make. They just give Balter yet another excuse to avoid substantive criticism.

But I would be interested in what others here think about making threats to one's livelihood as a debating technique?

They just give Balter yet another excuse to avoid substantive criticism

Having gone back to read Mr. Balter's piece a second time, it seems to me that pretty much everyone posting on this thread has a valid point. Namely:

Mr. Balter is correct that the pro-science strategy, such as it is, just ain't getting the job done.

Morbius, Hurd, and their fellow detractors are correct that Mr. Balter's piece, unless you're reading it very closely, comes off as a pro-ID or pro-"teach the controversy" article.

That said, the rabid tone of this thread is ridiculous. Criticism is valuable. Incivility is childish.

Can we turn the direction of this thread to something more productive? Mr. Balter, I think some legitimate criticisms have been leveled at your editorial in the L.A. Times. It didn't acknowledge the problem that the DI has historically used debates as a trap. Because there's been a debate, they claim that there's a legitimate controversy over the validity of the ToE. Furthermore, public debates favor show and smokescreens over substance.

Above, on this thread (#56028), you hint that you have some ideas about how a public debate might allow scientists to *educate* people, rather than simply giving the ID folks another soapbox. If that can be done, I'd personally like to hear about it.

In general: "how we get from where we are now, with ID a national issue and evolutionists fighting a constant battle, to where we want to be, people thinking scientifically" could be a very useful discussion.

The current state of this thread-- spleen-venting and foaming-at-the-mouth attacks-- is not.

spleen-venting and foaming-at-the-mouth attacks

all i did was bring Mr. Balter's latest position piece to the attention of those who might publish them without serious consideration

if you don't think that bad writers can influence the "debate"

In general: "how we get from where we are now, with ID a national issue and evolutionists fighting a constant battle, to where we want to be, people thinking scientifically" could be a very useful discussion.

Morbius, Hurd, and their fellow detractors are correct that Mr. Balter's piece, unless you're reading it very closely, comes off as a pro-ID or pro-"teach the controversy" article.

So, I spend the morning and most of the afternoon in my yard. There was an ant mating swarm (unfortunately a noxious invasive species but I killed some and watched birds kill others), and I watched a mourning cloak butterfly emerge, and a half dozen caterpillars of the same species climb up various walls to pupate. It rained earlier and I watched some orb weaver spiders repair their webs. I planted some seeds.

I had a few beers, and I am totally mellow.

Sir_Toejam I think that you are out of bounds regarding suggestions about Balter's employment. Please stop, or I'll will regretfully exercise the "editorial prerogative." Join the AAAS, and then see how you feel. I pay my AAAS dues, and so contribute to Mr. Balter's salary. Apparently you don't. No more such foolishness on this thread. Thank you in advance.

morbius, your contributions are very cogent. Thank you.

Mr. Balter, you are still just dodging. I suggest that you write your Kansas "solution."

It has just been too pleasant outside to have stayed on top of this today.

PS: I think that Brian Spitzer and morbius are basically agreeing, but I don't want to detail this at the moment.

I did point out a few times that unless one was very familiar with ID -v- science, Mr. Balter's editorial could be taken as pro-ID. He parroted the ID arguments, and merely implies that scientists could if only rousted, counter the threat by these "national debates."

The names Hovind and Gish and Morris come to mind.

There is no thought in my mind that Mr. Balter has any idea about how these affairs actually transpire.

Mr Balter, why are you wasting your time here arguing with us? Why aren't you out there debating all the IDers, to show all of us poor dolts who don't appreciate your genius how it's done?

It's too late to put ID back in the bottle, so I propose that we confront it directly.

I apologise to Michael Balter for any perceived insult in my previous posting.

My comment was in reply to someone that was implying that your opinion was important because you are an "evolutionary biologist and contribitor to the peer-reviewed journal Science". This is an appeal to authority.

I was responding to this assertion.I realise you have little control over what other people write about you and apologise for the comments I made above.

Chris Noble

You seem to think that public debates about evolution will change people's religious beliefs.

Briefly
STJ writers are hired on their writing skill more than any other criteria take it easy. Complain, cajole, attack the lax thinking but threaten in my books is out.

The only public debate/discourse that could help would be between scientists who actually understand evolution with no particular religious axe to grind (i.e.non confrontational) from different faiths including enlightened atheists who can explain the theology behind their belief in very, very, simple terms. In other words proper Media coverage not the 3 D's. That requires the interested media be engaged and encouraged.

In fact to my surprise, before I became aware of this latest DI thing, this is what has been going on with the interfaith dialog of the World's major religions.

Never in my lifetime did I expect to see a Pope welcome believers from all faiths around the world, non-believers and atheists into that dialog. I think they know something don't you ?,

They see the mistakes of the past writ large all over history, in their own church, the death of science with Islam a 1000 years ago, the worst excess of Fundamentalism, remember 1933? Sept 11?

Believe me Fundamentalism (institutional ignorance with knowledge replaced with rigid religious beliefs) is a major, major threat and that includes the DI.

So lead,defend,and remain tolerant. As far as the ID'ers are concerned the last one, tolerance is the most important to them, let them keep their beliefs just get the message through science can not kill god. (By the way I'm an enlightened atheist)

As far as we are concerned leadership and vigilance while not going over the top unless absolutely necessary, will support our case greatly.

Simple really .****cough cough?';

And sorry, but I do not believe that everyone who thinks this way is stupid and ignorant, as some people especially on DebunkCreation have suggested (morbius since you have access to the threads, why don't you pull a few of those comments and post them here, anonymously of course? Or at least agree that these kinds of comments were made by a number of people. For my part, I will concede that I did not handle the debate in that group as dispassionately as I should have.)

The fact is that there were numerous substantive comments and criticisms that you avoided, choosing instead to focus on the most offensive comments and pretending that they characterized all comments, except for those of Mikey, or except for those of Timothy -- in both cases using a divide and conquer strategy, but neither of them bit.

On 10/10/05 13:49, "catalhoyukbalter" wrote: > in which I suggest an alternative > approach to dealing with the intelligent design folks? Welcome to the group. For the record I disagree 100% with your suggestion that we should debate with the ID proponents. Debating these kooks is not the answer. They don't want to have a scientific debate. They want to muddy the water and advance the "wedge strategy". Giving them "respectability" by debating them just plays into their hands IMHO. We need to teach the facts as we see them in the world today in a better way. I see this as a science communication problem rather than a conflict between evidence based science and religion based ID. Ian

I am surprised to see this article, Michael. > Pro-evolution scientists have little to lose Time, resources, effort, and not to mention the impossibility of knowing all the little pieces that creationists throw at them. > and everything to gain from a nationwide debate. Scientists generally make very poor debaters. Anyways, science isn't a democracy or a tv debate forum and it transfers poorly into such a forum. Kids can learn science by learning actual evolutionary biology. There does not have to be a "debate" for this to occur. >And the courts should stay out of it because educators would not be required nor allowed to advocate a religious point of view. Precisely another reason why creationism should not be anywhere but in a theology, philosophical or history of science classroom. Teaching creationism as part of history is one thing, to have a debate on it as if it is a valid alternative is quite another.

Mikey, you should never be surprised when someone suggests a different route to arrive at the same result! I don't know how many members of this group live in the United States, but the opinion polls I cite demonstrate that in fact the theory of evolution has lost the argument amongst the great majority of Americans. The theory was born out of a struggle between religion and science, and that struggle continues today. Members of the group who have not yet read my piece should look at it closely. What I say is that evolutionists cannot avoid this struggle simply by ignoring it, and in fact this strategy has backfired. Evolutionists cannot expect people to accept the theory as a matter of faith! But in essence, by refusing to debate--which provides an opportunity to make the sharpest arguments--taking evolution on faith has become the de facto position of many scientists.

> Mikey, you should never be surprised when someone suggests a different > route to arrive at the same result! But granting creationism legitimacy is not the answer, it is the source of the problem as that is what creationists crave. > What I say > is that evolutionists cannot avoid this struggle simply by ignoring it, Neither should evolutionary biologists avoid it. However, many people's reluctance comes down to a few factors: 1. Poor science education in school 2. Disinterest 3. Theology Out of the three, the bankrupt fundie theology proves to be the biggest barrier. Basically you can have all the debates in the world, but unless you convince a fundie that his theology is actually wrong and that he won't go to Hell by accepting evolution, you are on a losing streak second to none. If you want any debates, let them be between theologians who accept evolution and fundies.

Michael, There are forums in which something resembling rational debate are possible -- depending upon the ground rules. This particular email group is one of them. Then there are other quite different forums -- particularly when a polished creationist is capable of putting out a lie every ten seconds which takes perhaps a couple of minutes to properly address -- assuming you can hold the attention of your audience for that long. And then there are different modes of communication which do not necessarily involve debate. Essays are a good example. I assume you don't equate expecting someone to read is equivilent to asking them to just have faith. But sound-bites probably won't do much good -- in fact, they might give the impression that there is actually something open to reasonable debate. In any case, I believe you addressed Mikey's first sentence without taking any time to read the other six, judging from your response. I find that interesting. Take care, Tim

[...] Actually, this group has a standing invitation to any proponent of Intelligent Design who claims to be in possession of a "scientific theory" of Intelligent Design... You may wish to look at: From: "Lenny Flank" Date: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:31 pm Subject: periodic invitation for ID/creationists here groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/77777 The central question for us, though, is whether the proponent is in possession of anything remotely resembling a scientific theory -- which is typically quite different from the sorts of questions that such proponents would choose to focus on.

Michael: We have all kinds of people here on this list. But we could always use more, and especially people who have "media" connections. Welcome to the group! Anne G

Hi there. The creationist/IDers offer nothing to "debate". They have no alternative scientific theory, and no evidence of any sort of support it. Until they, they quite literally have nothing to say. I get invited every couple of months to "debate" some nutjob or another on radio or TV (I just got invited a few weeks ago to radio- debate some Canadian kook). I always turn all such invitations down. Debates do nothing for us, and nothing but help for the creationists. It gives then an air of respectibility that they don't deserve. It allows them an opportunity to raise money and fire up their troops. I see no reason to help them. If creationist/IDers think they have something scientifically worthwhile to say, let them write it up and submit it to peer- reviewed science journals like everyone else has to. They aren't privileged, and their ideas are no more deserving of skipping the normal process of scientific acceptance than anyone else's. The IDers, right now, this very moment, have the opportunity of a lifetime ---- in a Dover courthouse, with the full glare of the entire world's media, they can present any evidence they have, call all the witnesses they like, and dazzle us with all the data they can produce. But they won't. They can't. They don't have any. (shrug)

Spoken like Richard Dawkins (who refuses invites for the same reason). I salute you Lenny. I won't debate with them, but I do enjoy making fun of them and all that they believe in.

In addition to my earlier post, I would like to take issue with the conflation of creationism and intelligent design that has become a sort of shorthand in this group. They are not the same thing. Creationism, traditionally, is biblical literalism, although some creationists are open to a more liberal interpretation, how many days, how many years, how it was done, etc. Creationism does not try to play on the same turf as evolution. Intelligent design, as anyone who has read its literature knows, is a direct challenge to Darwinism and natural selection that tries to demonstrate by statistics and other arguments (Cambrian explosion, etc) that natural selection cant get us where we are today. Thus it engages with Darwinian evolution and tries to debunk it directly. For this reason, it can and should be confronted. To say that ID is just creationism warmed over is an oversimplification and violates the dictum, know thy enemy.

mbalter@... wrote: > In addition to my earlier post, I would like to take issue with the > conflation of creationism and intelligent design Many of us here have been fighting creationism for a number of years and know the literature better than all the creationists who have crossed our paths. See www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html for a rebuttal.

> taking evolution on faith has become the de facto position of > many scientists. You need to find new scientists to talk to.

> For this reason, it > can and should be confronted. To say that ID is just creationism warmed > over is an oversimplification and violates the dictum, know thy enemy. Since you claim to be an expert in ID, can you point us to a scientific theory of ID that is suitable to teach in science classes? All the IDers have failed to do so when asked.

>The theory was born out of a struggle between > religion and science, Uh no, Darwin didn't come up with his evo theory because of a "struggle". What I say > is that evolutionists What the heck is an evolutionist? Is that like a moleculist? > Evolutionists cannot expect people to > accept the theory as a matter of faith! Precisely, this is science and no "evolutionist" (whatever that may be) has ever touted evolution as a matter of faith.

What I find extraordinary is the energy with which those who have responded to my posts debate creationism and intelligent design, and with very good arguments--but amongst yourselves. You do not want to take the debate where it really counts, on the battlefield of public opinion. The result is that most Americans, and a sizeable number of people in the UK and other countries, don't accept the theory of evolution. Is the purpose of a group like this to make everyone feel they are smarter than those who believe in creationism or ID, or is it to be effective and fine tune your debating skills in the larger arena? If the former, then all of the arguments fall on deaf ears, no matter how good they are. Demonizing the intelligent design people as a bunch of scheming, devious rightwingers does not win over anyone unless they agree with you already. Some of you have not carefully read my article, which answers all of the points Mikey made. I have a lot of respect for Mikey and what he does but we do not agree on how to approach this issue. www.michaelbalter.com (go to News and then Hominid Highlights to read the article, and respond to the specific points I make.) best, Michael Balter

On 11/10/05 11:38, "Michael Balter" wrote: > You do not want to take the debate where it > really counts, on the battlefield of public opinion. Who says? Just because we don't agree with your proposal doesn't mean we don't want to get the fact of evolution to a wider audience. As I said earlier this is a science communication issue and not a "we don't debate with iders" issue. > and a sizeable number of people in the UK Please define sizeable in context of the UK. With references if you have them. > and other countries, > don't accept the theory of evolution. Is the purpose of a group like this to > make everyone feel they are smarter than those who believe in creationism or > ID, or is it to be effective and fine tune your debating skills in the larger > arena? Its purpose it to provide a forum for the alleged scientific theory of ID to be presented. The complete failure of said theory to appear means we often go off on tangents. > > Some of you have not carefully read my article, which answers all of the > points Mikey made. I have a lot of respect for Mikey and what he does but we > do not agree on how to approach this issue. Fine. Nobody is asking you to agree with the consensus that has grown in our approach over the last few years. Nobody is stopping you go debate the ID proponents. Good luck with that... Ian

>I would like to take issue with the >conflation of creationism and intelligent design that has become a sort >of shorthand in this group. They are not the same thing. Sure they are. *IDists themselves SAY SO*. Have you read the Wedge Document, which spells out the goals of the ID movement? For that matter, have you read what Johnson, Dembski, and other IDists have to say? IDists like to make noise about how science is crippled by its adherence to naturalism. Fine -- the alternative to naturalism is *super*naturalism, i.e., religion. You may have heard of the pro-ID textbook, OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE? Well, one of its earlier drafts differs from the published book largely in that the draft says "creationism" where the published book says "intelligent design". Philip Johnson has asserted that there *is* empirical, scientific evidence that God exists. William Dembski has asserted that any scientific theory which *doesn't* mention Christ is *incomplete*; he's also asserted that ID is both (a) a ground-clearing operation for Christianity, and (b) the Logos of John's theology recast in terms of information theory. Why do *you* think ID *isn't* just the latest version of good old-fashioned Creationism?

> Who says? Just because we don't agree with your proposal doesn't mean we > don't want to get the fact of evolution to a wider audience. A Indeed, Michael Balter should've been around at the time of that famous book donation...

> Intelligent design, as anyone who has > read its literature knows, is a direct challenge to Darwinism and > natural selection that tries to demonstrate by statistics and other > arguments (Cambrian explosion, etc) that natural selection cant get us > where we are today. Note that ALL of the arguments presented by IDers --- every single one, from the Cambrian explosion to the tornado in a junkyard to irreducible complexity -- are just rehashed versions of the same old arguments made thirty years ago by the creation "scientists". IDers have not said anything that isn't just cribbed from standard ICR boilerplate. They have nothing new to add.

> In addition to my earlier post, I would like to take issue with the > conflation of creationism and intelligent design that has become a > sort of shorthand in this group. They are not the same thing. Yes they are. And the IDers themselves tell us that they are. From the Wedge Document (which was written by the Discovery Institute itself to describe the ID movement, its goals, and its strategy: "Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. " "FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES 1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003) * Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation" Thus, the IDers themselves tell us, in their own words, that the objective of Intelligent design 'theory" is to "defend traditional doctrine of creation". Those who attempt to tell us that ID is different from creationism, are flat-out lying to us. Also, note that one of ID's objectives is "a major public debate between design theorists and darwinists". This is a political strategy, not a sicentific one. And I see no reason for us to help them with it. If ID has something scientific to say, let them say it in peer- reviewed scientific journals like everyone else. But then, ID does not *have* anything scientific to say. As they themselves note, ID is a political movement with the goal of replacing science with "theistic understanding". Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

> On 11/10/05 07:29, "mbalter@..." wrote: > > > For this reason, it > > can and should be confronted. To say that ID is just creationism > > warmed over is an oversimplification and violates the dictum, know > > thy enemy. > > Since you claim to be an expert in ID, can you point us to a > scientific theory of ID that is suitable to teach in science classes? > > All the IDers have failed to do so when asked. > Indeed. I'd like to know what the designer does, specifically, according to this scientififc theory of ID. I'd like to know what mechanisms the designer uses, according to this scientific theory of ID. And I'd like to know where we can see the designer using these mechanisms to do . . . well . . anything. Were I to "debate" IDers, that would be the only quesiton I'd ask. And I'd force them to shut up until they answered it.

> > What I find extraordinary is the energy with which those who have > responded to my posts debate creationism and intelligent design, and > with very good arguments--but amongst yourselves. You do not want to > take the debate where it really counts, on the battlefield of public > opinion. The only place where the debate really counts, in the US, in in the courts. It is illegal to teach religious opinions in public schools. Period. The creationist/IDers have lost every single Federal court casr they have ever been involved with. In cases where they tried to argue that ID/creationism is science, they have lost. In cases where they have tried to argue that evolution is religion, they have lost. In court, the creationist/IDers are free to present all their evidence, call any witnesses they want, present any data they can, and make all the arguments that they think will demonstrate their position. And they have lost, every single time. They have not yet been able to convince a single judge anywhere in the United States of America that any of their crap is science and deserves to be taught in a science class. As for American public opinion, well, many Americans can't even find the United States on a world map, and most of us still beleive that (1) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and (2) Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks. We are basically a nation of pig-ignorant uneducated uninformed morons.

The theory was born out of a > struggle between religion and science No it wasn't. , and that struggle continues > today. No it doesn't. The vast majority of Christians, worldwide, accept all of modern science and have no gripe at all with evolution or any other part of science. The ONLY ones who have a gripe are the fundamentalists, and they are a tiny lunatic fringe within Chrisitanity. What I say is that evolutionists cannot avoid this > struggle simply by ignoring it No one is "ignoring it". Evolutionists cannot expect people to accept the theory as > a matter of faith! That's right. Faith is a matter for religious nuts, not for science. Evolution is n o more based on "faith" than is gravity or plate tectonics or the mass of an electron. But in essence, by refusing to debate--which > provides an opportunity to make the sharpest arguments The fundies have had numerous opportunities, in open court, to make all of their "sharpest arguments". They can present whatever witnesses they want to, they can make all their arguments, they can offer all their data and evidence. They can take their very best shot. And they have lost, every single time.

> Mikey, you should never be surprised when someone suggests a different > route to arrive at the same result! I don't know how many members of this > group live in the United States, but the opinion polls I cite demonstrate > that in fact the theory of evolution has lost the argument amongst the > great majority of Americans. The theory was born out of a struggle between > religion and science, Wrong. The theory was an explanation for many puzzling scientific issues that had nothing at all to do with religion. The fact that it then conflicted with religion is irrelevant. and that struggle continues today. Members of the > group who have not yet read my piece should look at it closely. What I say > is that evolutionists cannot avoid this struggle simply by ignoring it, and > in fact this strategy has backfired. Evolutionists cannot expect people to > accept the theory as a matter of faith! Wrong Faith does not have the slightest thing whatsoever to do with evolution. Faith is belief without (& often in the face of) evidence & is strongly associated with religion & the supernatural. Evolution is a scientific concept derived from evidence that specifically is not associated with anyone's religious beliefs & requires only natural mechanisms (as opposed to supernatural mechanisms) in its explanation. Evolution & faith are like chalk & cheese, up & down, black & white; they are about as far apart as two things could possibly be. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that creationists confuse the two, but do you have to join in. But in essence, by refusing to > debate--which provides an opportunity to make the sharpest > arguments--taking evolution on faith has become the de facto position of > many scientists. Wrong. Just because someone refuses to debate creationists it does not logically follow that they accept evolution on faith (whatever that actually means) no more than it logically follows that they are too drunk to debate. Alan.

On 10/10/05, mbalter@... wrote: > In addition to my earlier post, I would like to take issue with the > conflation of creationism and intelligent design that has become a sort of > shorthand in this group. They are not the same thing. Creationism, > traditionally, is biblical literalism, although some creationists are open > to a more liberal interpretation, how many days, how many years, how it was > done, etc. Creationism does not try to play on the same turf as evolution. > Intelligent design, as anyone who has read its literature knows, is a > direct challenge to Darwinism and natural selection that tries to > demonstrate by statistics and other arguments (Cambrian explosion, etc) > that natural selection cant get us where we are today. Thus it engages with > Darwinian evolution and tries to debunk it directly. For this reason, it > can and should be confronted. To say that ID is just creationism warmed > over is an oversimplification and violates the dictum, know thy enemy. Michael, While I see that a number of people have responded to this post already, I hope you won't mind if I mention simply a few of items. At the same time, while I disagree with much of your post, I believe you have brought to foreground an important point, and I appreciate this -- but I will get to that a little later in this post, and instead begin by focusing on a couple of clarifications. First, there are different kinds of creationism. The best known division is between the so called biblical literalists, known as the Young Earth Creationists, and the Old Earth Creationists. This rather basic division of Creationists existed long before the so-called "Intelligent Design" Movement was conceived. Old Earth Creationists will oftentimes have no difficulty with evolution -- so long as it takes within certain kinds -- where what is meant by a "kind" is deliberately left elastic. The Intelligent Design movement itself is an unstable compromise between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, where for the time being, they are setting aside their differences in order to join together against a common foe under the broad tent of "Intelligent Design." As just one indication of this alliance, allow me to quote Dembski: "As a limited tool for dislodging materialism, developing the concept of design, and applying it to biological systems, ID is the best thing going. I would therefore like to encourage Henry Morris and all young-earth creationists to view intelligent design as a friend in the destruction of Darwinian materialism and in developing the scientific understanding of design in nature," William Dembski,Intelligent Design's Contribute to the Debate over Evolution: a reply to Henry Morris,1 February 2005. www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm However, in order to portray themselves as a "scientific" alternative, they have engaged in a slow process of distancing themselves from the term "creationist." One example was already brought up by Cubist: the editing of the textbook "Of Pandas and People," which we have learned as the result of pretrial motions in the Dover case, started off strictly using the term "creationism," and only later replaced it with "Intelligent Design." But this is a process which has taken years. (See the book "Creationism's Trojan Horse" by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross for further detail.) And now, one of the more recent strategies is to claim that term "creationism" only refers to the doctrines of Young Earth Creationism, and therefore, when evolutionists call "Intelligent Design theory" a form of creationism, they are simply attacking a straw man. However, this just simply is not the case: the proponents of Intelligent Design are simply trying to obscure the origins of their own movement in order to appear more scientific. But as you have made clear, this strategy is something which we will have to take into account. If we simply expect people to know that "Intelligent Design Theory" is a form of creationism and they have either heard or later hear that this is some kind of "straw man" attack by evolutionists, they are likely to think our equating the two is a consequence of our dishonesty, not that of the proponents of Intelligent Design. This is something which we may very well wish to take into account -- at least when speaking with or writing for the general public.

Michael Balter wrote: <<>> This is not my understanding after reading the evidence of Dr Barbara Forrest. See www.aclupa.org/downloads/WA100505.pdf esp from p 106 or so. She demonstrates (conclusively in my view) that the SAME people who lead the Creationist movement simply adopted Intelligent Design as a convenient mystification of the SAME old creationist canards. In fact a large number of instances exist where draft Creationist materials had references to creationism excised and replaced with ID. This happened wherever the drafts had been authored prior to the Edwards case but published subsequently!! Eg from p 117 of her evidence where the definition of creationism is quoted as it appeared in a well-known creationist tract: "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." This definition is VERBATIM repeated in a pre-Edwards draft of "Of Pandas and People". The post-Edwards draft (subsequently published) repeats it again but now as follows: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." Forrest demonstrates that the word "creation" was substituted with the word "design" throughout the text of Pandas. This is simply roguery. But perhaps it is necessary to debate the rogues - especially if they have managed to bamboozle the delirious American population into believing their crescendo of nonsense. Clive van der Spuy